The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1887-11-03

MAJ 'Ipss5s s 'ss..s e Yss NV SsIE
BtatS a Large, second sdltion; S7a IN MishigsR'
stat., Nebraska, 1855. p. 8sa. criminal code q
nv nv Yor h9 wss sassinsa y ss '
Now %. 70 Typ decided June ~ lsas
ever since. 30 far as We have been able TO di =,
cover no doubt has over been entertained, NJ, IN
OF the statutes Of those States respectiyely
but they have always been treated Dy t Hnnr
stiaton Of he United eds States and under that
e uI na ,s sss tas RsSSs oSia ~
Indeed. the rule Of the statute Of Illinois; y, as
sefs f eS aersnt II from V that which been
Sss ss ss sSs IS na inv so
ME, is Mich. 22I; State agt. Fox. butcher,
@ the %sSs 81 H sms
AZ E s.as af Seam III Zee also an saboTate
note to this last case In SO Am. Dec. 32i. whore
yery large ;st number Of authorities on this sub
Without pursuing this subject further, II is
ssy nrt nos ,hs S
the statute. on its face. as construed by the
trial court, is not repugnant 70 SECTION q pr,
guarantees to the accused party in every Grim;
na speedy trial BY an i%pSH PR d,
jury Of tho county or district IN wniEa ne az
this s II Substantially tho provisions Of the Con-
stitution OF the United States on which the pc
position as to tie operation and effect Of that
IL the rs re
va aaI p Gos them to consfdsraton Of the
grounds Of challenge TO the Jurors, Denker and and
saniord 70 see 4 in the actual s S instr tSa
riRhts OF tho defendants under the Constitu-
tion Of tho United States were In any way I'M
The Court then gives extracts from the ), ex <.
that he was challenged for cause" by the az.
theqson he Was setTis By the
tho Courts examination is appended. the the
Geu. se Juror %ss accspod and
iendants THIS exSmnation i also reRrIn "a
examination Of tho Juror by counsel for the do.
PENDANTS closed, and he was examined by, the
from tic questions and answers In this exam
nation. The opini ion continues:
the q The nrr
Cured Il Is not denied the defendants were
sou sn has G s tho
was called he was first examined by counsel
Sr Rs shs Close o
tho part OF the defendants the Juror was chal-
lent:ed on their behalf for cause, and the at u;
iendants had been exhausted. took up the e1-
The result Of this Examination is given, as is
to oyerrale for cause. and stating that. Is t6e
sss'sss
sondition Of the case Ct and after some further
examination Of the juror. which ELECTED moth
ing Of Importance in connection with the pres
lhIHals bs sanod
as Juror and the panel was thus complete.
sents ali there is in the record which this Court
can consider touching the challenge OF these
Rs;b by he ss be Tn s States 1913
court that in order to Justify the reversal
81 s Se TsTory Of Gah supreme fos Refusing
to allow to 5og in ina
upon upon Il the evidence The Court ought to have
opinion that he could not in law be deemed
Impartial. The case must be one IN which It
e OF hss ns Of
Is the degree Of strietness WHICH is required
In tho ordinary cases Of writs from one court
ought to be careful that It is not at all relaxed
in u case like this. when the ground relied on
iSe hshes Of she
complained OF Is 60 great as to amount In law
ta to Who Is Of an
are unhesitatingly Of the opinion that no such
case Is disclosed BY this record. ~
the defendant Spies was compelled by the
Court to be witness against himself. He vol
snd BY dons he Secsme bound
ton. The complaint is that he, was required
Ntnu fff,r NCfn IN hot nV hc hnd
received q certain letter. which was shown,
purporting to have been written by Johann
ing that he had, the Court allowed the letter to
be read In evidence against him. This. 1t is
was net
GROSS examination related was not pertinent
to the Issue to be tried: and whether cross
pertinent to tho testimony in chief, or may be
extended to the matter IN issue, Is certatnly
and not Of Federal law. ' '' 10 " 'A' ''"'''
Something has been said In argument about
an alleged unreasonable search and seizure of
fendants, and their use il evidence on The trial
Of the + made in h
sss Wss have no
which It appears that Objection was made to
upon this point the Supreme Conrt Of the State.
In that part OF It's opinion which has been
printed with this motion. remarks as follows:
setendae an nnssta seizure made for IT, ass
tune In this II made the trial In the
court below Such objection this which not sug
geted the of the offered evidence but depends
upon tho proof Of outside fact should have been
made on tho trial The defence should have proved
that the Most letter Of the letters Illegally seized
by the police, and should then have moved to exclude
or oppose Its admission, the ground that Il OBJ
tanned BY such Illegal seizure This not done and
e Sc tho aus
{" Even though the Court was wrong in saying
that 1t did not appear that the Most letter was
one OF the papers Illegally seized, 1t still re-
mains uncontradicted that no objection was
made In the trial court to Its admission on that
account To give us justification under sec
tion 400 OF the Revised Statutes because Of the
denial by q State court OF any title, right
privilege. or immunity claimed under the
Constitution. or any treaty or statute OF the
United States, 1t must appear that such title
right, privilege, or immunity was specially
set up or claimed at the proper time and In
the proper way. To be REMOVABLE. the de-
cislon must be against the right so set up or
claimed. As the Supreme Court Of the State
WAS reviewing the decision oil tho trial court
to make the question renewable here 1t must
appear that the claim was made In that court.
thoriZed to review the judgment OF that
court for errors committed there, and We can
do no more. This is not. as seems to be sup
posed by one OF the counsel for the petitioners,
o question OF the waiver OF q right under tho
Constitution, laws, or treaties OF tho United